Keystone Foods Holdings Limited v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

S.D. New York

Keystone Foods Holdings Limited v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

DecidedSeptember 30, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-03888

StatusUnknown

This text of Keystone Foods Holdings Limited v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (Keystone Foods Holdings Limited v. Tyson Foods, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keystone Foods Holdings Limited v. Tyson Foods, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED: 9/30/20 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ee eee eee ee eee eee ee eee eee nesses eee X KEYSTONE FOODS HOLDINGS LIMITED : Plaintiff, : -against- : 1:19-cv-03888 (ALC) : ORDER

TYSON FOODS, INC., : Defendant. :

ee eee eee ee eee eee ee eee eee nesses eee X ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge: Plaintiff Beef Holdings requests leave to file under seal an excerpt of the Disclosure Schedule to the Share Purchase Agreement negotiated between it and Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. For the reasons that follow, this request is DENIED. LEGAL STANDARD There is a “common law right of public access to judicial documents [that] is firmly rooted in our nation’s history.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondanga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 2d Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo I’). A judicial document is a filing “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145. In evaluating a motion seal a judicial document, a court must determine what weight to afford the presumption, which “is a function of (1) ‘the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power’ and (2) ‘the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts,’ balanced against ‘competing considerations’ such as ‘the privacy

interests of those resisting disclosure.’” Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119-20). “The party seeking to place the judicial documents under seal bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of public access.” Rogers v. Henry, No. 16-cv-05271, 2017 WL 5495805, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2017) (collecting cases). DISCUSSION The document Beef Holdings seeks to file under seal is related to Defendant Tyson’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss several counts of Beef Holdings’ Complaint. The motion arises under a dispute regarding the purchase of Beef Holdings by Tyson. Beef Holdings states that it does not have an interest in the confidentiality of the Disclosure Schedule excerpt. (ECF No. 58 at 3). However, it notes that Tyson may object to public filing as the excerpt contains some confidential business information regarding Beef Holdings/Keystone. (/d.) Tyson did not respond to Beef Holdings’ request and Beef Holdings did not satisfy its required burden to obtain sealing as it provided little to no information about why the document’s contents demand confidentiality. CONCLUSION The motion to file under seal is DENIED. Beef Holdings should file this document on the docket by October 2, 2020. This resolves Dkt 57.

SO ORDERED. D , September 30, 2020 (rdrs <9 ated: New York, New York ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED: 9/30/20 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ee eee eee ee eee eee ee eee eee nesses eee X KEYSTONE FOODS HOLDINGS LIMITED : Plaintiff, : -against- : 1:19-cv-03888 (ALC) : ORDER

TYSON FOODS, INC., : Defendant. :

ee eee eee ee eee eee ee eee eee nesses eee X ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge: Plaintiff Beef Holdings requests leave to file under seal an excerpt of the Disclosure Schedule to the Share Purchase Agreement negotiated between it and Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. For the reasons that follow, this request is DENIED. LEGAL STANDARD There is a “common law right of public access to judicial documents [that] is firmly rooted in our nation’s history.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondanga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 2d Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo I’). A judicial document is a filing “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145. In evaluating a motion seal a judicial document, a court must determine what weight to afford the presumption, which “is a function of (1) ‘the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power’ and (2) ‘the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts,’ balanced against ‘competing considerations’ such as ‘the privacy

interests of those resisting disclosure.’” Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119-20). “The party seeking to place the judicial documents under seal bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of public access.” Rogers v. Henry, No. 16-cv-05271, 2017 WL 5495805, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2017) (collecting cases). DISCUSSION The document Beef Holdings seeks to file under seal is related to Defendant Tyson’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss several counts of Beef Holdings’ Complaint. The motion arises under a dispute regarding the purchase of Beef Holdings by Tyson. Beef Holdings states that it does not have an interest in the confidentiality of the Disclosure Schedule excerpt. (ECF No. 58 at 3). However, it notes that Tyson may object to public filing as the excerpt contains some confidential business information regarding Beef Holdings/Keystone. (/d.) Tyson did not respond to Beef Holdings’ request and Beef Holdings did not satisfy its required burden to obtain sealing as it provided little to no information about why the document’s contents demand confidentiality. CONCLUSION The motion to file under seal is DENIED. Beef Holdings should file this document on the docket by October 2, 2020. This resolves Dkt 57.

SO ORDERED. D , September 30, 2020 (rdrs <9 ated: New York, New York ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Keystone Foods Holdings Limited v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keystone-foods-holdings-limited-v-tyson-foods-inc-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack